When did this happen? Today or 300 years ago?
“The first proposition we've listed for naturalism states that "Matter/Energy is all there is for eternity,..." and if this is true, then the totality of man is only matter.
And if this is true it is bad why?
If there is some degree of consciousness and thought in the brain of man, that thinking is still only a result of matter's properties.
And this is bad why? And how can you tell the difference?
Why would these "thoughts" produced by matter (the chemical brain of man) correspond to the truth of reality? Matter has no known interest in truth. Why should chemicals be able to distinguish illusion from reality, since there is no rational and purposive cause for the existence of man or his mind,?
Why should chemicals react with each other?
In this case not the chemicals do the distinguishing but the whole system. A system that has a less accurate model of the environment it is part of than one that has a more accurate model is often at a disadvantage compared to the latter. So those who have a better model of reality are those that are more likely to continue their existence.
Of course, naturalists may appeal to scientific inquiry and the laws of logical thought. But this begs the question, because it is the chemical brain which is "thinking" and using the scientific method and the laws of thought ...all of which might still be an illusion, and not reality.
Oh but it seems to work quite well in this reality. And without some compelling evidence why should we believe that this is not the ultimate reality?
C.S.Lewis quotes Prof. Haldane as saying, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . . and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms" ("Miracles", p.18). This may be like the motion of atoms to create "thoughts" in a computer ...what is to determine whether those computer "thoughts" are true or not?
And if his mental processes are not only determined by the motions of atoms and electrons what reason has he to believe that his beliefs are true in this case?
If naturalism is right, and matter is all there is, then even our "thoughts" about thinking and the brain and everything else may be nothing but illusion. “
If our universe is nothing but a cellular automaton running on a multidimensional computer that is operated by multidimensional beings then this cellular automaton in this computer is our reality.
I think Physicist made a similar point when he tried to explain the appearance of free will to an other Freeper. I could be wrong though but I think I remember something like that.
And if this is true it is bad why?
And this is bad why? And how can you tell the difference?
Why should chemicals react with each other?
Oh but it seems to work quite well in this reality. And without some compelling evidence why should we believe that this is not the ultimate reality?
And if his mental processes are not only determined by the motions of atoms and electrons what reason has he to believe that his beliefs are true in this case?
OK…
I don’t think my ‘opinion’ will change your ‘mind’ so please answer these questions yourself and for your own sake (if you are truly interested).